R. Rathish Goud v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: K. SUJANA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2025-12-19. R. Rathish Goud v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
33851 [ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMTJUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16483 OF 2025 years, 1. R. Rathish Goud, S/o Prasad Goud, Aged about 31 Occ. PM Employee, Rl/o. H. No. 1-5-17, New Bus Stand, Domakonda Village and Mandal, Kamareddy District - 503123, TS. 2. R. Prasad Goud, S/o Rama Goud, Aged about 54 years. Occ. Business, Rl/o. H. No. 1-5-17, New Bus Stand, Domakonda Village and Mandal, Kamareddy District - 503123, TS. ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No. 3 & 4 ENI. ] The State of Telangana, Represented By Public Prosecutor- Ttrrough S. H. O. P. S. Nizarnabad Town lV. High court for the state of Telangana, At Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENT'COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of BNSS/438 of Cr. P.
C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner by directing the S. H. O of Nampally Police Station to release /enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection FIR No. 417 of 2025 dated 1311112025' U/ s. 8(c) r/w 22(c), 29 of NDPS Act 1985 at Nizamabad Town-lV Police Station, Nizamabad District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ramavaram Chandrashekar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 16483 of 2O25 DATE: L9. 12. 2O25 BETWI}EN: R. Rattrish Goud and another .... petitioner/accused Nos. 3 and 4 And The State of Telangana, Rep.
by Public Prosecutor, High Ccurt for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. . .. . . Respondent/ comPlainant ORDER Ttris Criminal Petition is {iled praying this Court to enlarge the petitioners on pre-arrest bail who are arrayed as accused Nos. 3 and 4 in crime No. 417 0f 2025 before the Nizamabad Town IV Police Station, Nizamabad District, sKsi,J Crl. P. Ito. 1648? of 2ol25 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read wit}] 22(c) and 29 of NDPS Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 13. 11 . 2025, the police received credible information that Alprazolam was being mixed with toddy at a house in Pangra village, Nizamabad. After complying with Section 42(2)'NDPS Act, the police, along with panch witnesses and a clues team, conducted a search and seized 81. 65 grams of Atprazolam from A1 and 75. 58 grams from A2, along with mobile phones, sachets and a weighing machine.
A1 and A2 allegedly confessed that they had been mixing Alprazolam with toddy to increase sales and stated that they had procured the substance from A3 and A4, who were later shown as absconding. 3. Heard R. Cahndrashekar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners were innocent and had been falsely implicated solely on the basis of a vague statement made by accused Crl. P.! to. 16483 of 2O25 a No. 2, with no recovery whatsoever from them. He further submitted that the petitioners were not present at the scene, had no connection with the seized contraband. , and were being I I targeted due to personal grudge and earlier harassment by the police He contended that petitioner No.
2 was a heart patient i I who had recently suffered a brain stroke and required i i continuous medical treatment and that custodial interrogation was urnnecessary, the allegations were baseless, and the petitio:rers were ready to cooperate with the investigation. Therefirre, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition. 5. ()n the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposerl the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the petitioners are the drug peddlers. He furt:eer submitted that the investigation is in progress and if the pr:titioners are released on pre-arrest bail, at this stage, they mrry tamper with the evidence and may threaten the witnessr:s. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on sKs,J Crl. P. IIo.
l6tt8 3 of 2025 record, it is noted that the limited grievance of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were falsely implicated in the case and that petitioners are no way concerned with the alleged offence punishable under NDPS Act, as no contraband was seized from their possession, whereas, it is the specific stand of learned Additional Fublic Prosecutor that petitioners are actively involved with other accused in their illegal activities. 7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that in cases arising under the NDPS Act, the Court is required to exercise great caution while considering a prayer for anticipatory bail, keeping in view the nature of allegations, gravity of the offence, and the necessity of custodial interrogation for a fair and effective investigation. The Hon'ble High Court, as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Chander v.
State of Haryanal, has observed that where the investigation materials disclose a prima facie link of the accused with the alleged offence, such as his involvement being reflected from statements of co-accused, electronic communication, or financial transactions, the grant of pre-arrest protection would t stp (c. t. ) No. 9540 of 2025 Crl. P. No. 16483 of 2o25 seriol. rsly hamper the process of investigation. The settled position of law is that anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a mertter of routine or on mere assertion of innocence, particularly when the investigation is at a nascent stage and the role of the petitioner requires thorough examination. In such circumstances, the Court may rightly decline to extend the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail, leaving it open to the ac:cused to surrender before the jurisdictional Court and seek regular bail, which shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. 8.
ln view thereof, this criminal petition is dismissed. I{iscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. sd/'M. JAWAH4B BEPPY -AsslsrANT REGISTRAR 6 4 /TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To, l. TheSpeci:rlJudicialFirstClass(Mobile)MagistrateatNizamabad Police Station, Nizamabad District 2. The Statioll House officer, Town. lV at public prosecutor, High court for the State of relangana 3. Two ccs l. o the HYderabac. [OUTI 4. oneCCtoSriRamavaramChandrashekarReddy,Advocate[oPUCl -Jb, 5. Two CD er:pies HIGH COURT ( DATED: 1911212025 t\ HE SIA (:) () 5 FtB ? 026 t= ti J * , l::? CRL No. 16483 ot 2025 DISMISSING THE CRLP fi<s azlrlae ,/
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.